Billy Graham’s Wall Street Journal ad…Vote Bible

We have our third Presidential debate tonight. Have you been praying for this nation? 2 Chronicles 7:14 says this:

“If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

This is a crucial hour in the course of this country. We have to stand up, step out and stand strong for Godly leadership. It is no time to be silent. Hold fast to your convictions of faith and vote for Biblical values on November 6th. If you don’t know what that means, go back and read the previous articles.

There is a back lash of hate spewed rhetoric toward Conservative Biblical values all over this country. Don’t believe me? Just ask Liberty Farms or Chick-fil-A how they have been treated, as private business owners-for simply believing and supporting the Biblical definition of marriage. It’s sad, and certainly, Liberty Farms- a NY owned and operated business got no help from so called tolerant bloggers on the TU.

NY State, can’t lose any more employers, or see any more farms shut down. Our state is in desperate times already. It’s a sad state of affairs when bloggers try to take a private company’s affirmation of Christian beliefs and turn it into homophobic, fundamentalist hate mongering, discrimination action. Then, they try to back peddle when all the liberals trash Liberty Farms Facebook page with bullying hate speech…so sad. Liberty Farms decision should have been a non-issue. Period. Just like any privately owned farm by a homosexual couple, who doesn’t support the biblical definition of marriage, has every right to refuse any traditional Biblical weddings, and do so without fear of hate speech and bullying toward them. It’s a right!

Standing up for what you believe in is the American way. It’s okay. As Christians, we should be standing up for Biblical beliefs. Make sure you do that on voting day.

BillyGraham, one of the mostrespected evangelists of our time recently took out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal. Perhaps you saw it? This is what it said- but you can link to it at the bottom.

“On November 6, the day before my 94th birthday, our nation will hold one of the most critical elections in my lifetime. We are at a crossroads and there are profound moral issues at stake. I strongly urge you to vote for candidates who support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and woman, protect the sanctity of life, and defend our religious freedoms. The Bible speaks clearly on these crucial issues. Please join me in praying for America, that we will turn our hearts back toward God.”

81 Responses

Irrespective of Liberty Farms’ personal views on gay marriage- they may very well be in violation of Human Rights Law by refusing to allow a ceremony strictly due to the participants being homosexual. It would be akin to them not agreeing to host a mixed-religious or mixed-race marriage. It is a form of discrimination.

Liz, public outrage at offensive corporate acts is protected speech. Your implied argument that Liberty Ridge’s denial of this couple does not itself constitute intolerance is ridiculous. Liberty Ridge is a place of public accommodation and therefore subject to the United States and New York State Civil Rights Acts. The Farm treads on razor thin ice should this issue be litigated; a finding of their refusal to accommodate this couple as arbitrary would render them guilty of discrimination. Legally speaking, your analysis is wrong. Also, no blogger can “turn something into” discrimination; Liberty Ridge discriminated. You may quibble with bloggers’ assessments of Liberty Ridge’s discriminatory actions as motivated by homophobia or hate, but there is no argument here about whether this couple was discriminated against. The question of note is: did Liberty Ridge act within their legal rights?

Liz, certainly they can discriminate on their private land, just perhaps not as a place of public accommodation. The price of freedom is tolerance for things one might find objectionable; it undergirds the whole framework of a free nation. And a key point of the separation of church and state is to prevent people and organizations from exercising their intolerance by infringing on the rights of others in the name religious principles.

No Liz- if they offer (for money) their “private” land for use by other couples for marriage ceremonies, but do not offer the same use to gay couples then that is almost certainly a violation of at least NY Human Rights Law. Again Liz- do you think they could refuse to allow a mixed-race marriage on their so-called private land?

Scott,
Not sure honestly how the law of the land will rule. It is my understanding from asking an attorney (not one specializing in discriminatory cases though) that they couldn’t be shut down for it. So legally, I don’t have the answer. But, I think it’s a sad, sad thing that they are in fact getting ripped apart by angry liberal mobs of people. I am curious though… Would people be this way if it was a homosexual couple who denied the right for a heterosexual couple who wanted a conservative Biblical ceremony on it’s land? Objectively, do you think the reaction would gather this much vitriol?

Also-
thinking of Congress and debates…my friend just sent this to me. I’m sure many of you have seen it. The title is “Pass it on” so if you agree. Copy it, paste it, and pass it on to 20 people or more 🙂

Warren Buffett, in a recent interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes,” he told CNBC. “You just
pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more
than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible
for re-election.

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds)
took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple!
The people demanded it. That was in 1971 – before computers, e-mail,
cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took one (1) year
or less to become the law of the land – all because of public pressure.

Warren Buffet is asking each addressee to forward this email to
a minimum of twenty people on their address list; in turn ask
each of those to do likewise.

In three days, most people in The United States of America will
have the message. This is one idea that really should be passed
around.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. No Tenure / No Pension.

A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they’re out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social
Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the
Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into
the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the
American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all
Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and
participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void
effective 12/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congress made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in
Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers
envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their
term(s), then go home and back to work.

If each person contacts a minimum of twenty people then it will
only take three days for most people (in the U.S. ) to receive
the message. Don’t you think it’s time?

THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!

If you agree, pass it on. If not, delete.
You are one of my 20+ – Please keep it going, and thanks

I honestly don’t know if it was a homosexual couple who denied the right for a heterosexual couple who wanted a conservative Biblical ceremony on it’s land would create as much of a furor. My gut tells me yes- and the homosexual couple (assuming they owned property held out to the public for hire for wedding ceremonies) would be equally as wrong. And being figuratively ripped apart from angry mobs (liberal or conservative)is wrong and I am a strong proponent of rational and respectful discourse whenever possible.

Liz, in answer to your question to Scott, homosexual business owners shutting their doors to a Christian wedding would be guilty of religious discrimination. As the religious constitute a protected class, the outrage you describe would be completely reasonable and expected. A more apt analogy, however, would be Yankee Stadium denying entry to mentruating women because Leviticus deems them unclean. Would you object such an equally arbitrary exclusion based solely upon religious convections?

Liz, typos notwithstanding, my analogy is sound. The Bible says many intolerant things and promotes many intolerant behaviors. Leviticus deems menstruating women and everything they touch unclean, and says they should be set apart for seven days. No one would question public outrage over a business adopting an exclusion based on this Biblical standard; the business would be justifiably branded ignorant and intolerant, and would liekly lose in court. Yet, you decry a passionate public response to an equally arbitrary and intolerant discriminatory act.

Moreover, your hyperbolic characterization of what has been a largely measured and respectable public response is misleading. Free market champions should appreciate the free market in action.

From a purely capitalistic perspective, the market is simply responding. If people don’t want to frequent your business because they don’t agree with you, it’s fairly natural for them to respond wouldn’t you agree?

Discriminate against a population with strong support, and you’re likely to lose customers.

What am I missing?

The few vitriolic attacks from the far left aside (and there are as many vitriolic in-kind responses from the far right), the math here is pretty simple, and not in the favor of Liberty Farms (whom my family will no longer visit).

Troy Taxpayer,
Obviously people are free to choose which places they want to spend their money. No issue there. But, I believe this same sex couple is wrong to go after the Liberty Ridge business. Just as I think that a heterosexual couple would be wrong for trying to bring down a business owned and operated by homosexuals, who were against Biblical beliefs. I stand by my previous article: “It’s about loving people, not gay vs. straight.”

Liz,
I do have some serious consternation over whether someone has the legal right to sue a private interest over any sort of discrimination, unless that discrimination results in physical or financial harm.

That said, your post clearly criticizes people you label as liberals (when a great many of them are probably very moderate) of ‘Bullying hate-speech’. I quickly read through the posts on facebook, and most of them were simply ‘we won’t do business here anymore’. A few were fanatical, but almost all were met with vitriolic attacks from the right.

Again, I can understand a business like Liberty Farms, or Chik-Fil-A having the right to discriminate as a private entity, but I also appreciate the market responding in kind. That’s very simply, what our system is all about.

When Mitt Romney was running for the nomination, many on the religious right were highly critical of his faith. The Southern Baptist Convention and the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association characterized Mormonism as a cult.

But Billy Graham’s for-profit church has since scrubbed that view from its website.

oates, are you aware of, or ignorant of the fact that there are now 17,000 fewer employed Americans than there were in December, 2008, the last month before Mr Obama became president? Now, given this fact, where are all of the jobs that Obama’s $787,000,000,000 stimulus was supposed to have saved or created?

Those silly taxers (the folks who claim that Romney hasn’t been paying his taxes even though Obama’s IRS has shown no interest in collecting Romney’s allegedly unpaid millions in taxes, penalties and interest during this presidential campaign) are still making their silly claims about Romney’s taxes, the same way that the birthers keep making their silly claims! Why on earth would Obama, the consumate politician, NOT use his IRS to prosecute Romney during this presidential campaign, in order to assure his victory over Romney in the presidential election?

It just doesn’t make sense, which is why it is so silly. The silly taxers still making this obviously false argument make themselves look less than believable, when they advance such patently silly arguments as their taxer argument!

Um…I think people are saying he (Romney) is paying a low rate (compared to what a middle class person pays) through loopholes, deductions, etc. I have heard others speculate he was still making money off Gain Capital after he said he left, which is another reason he won’t release old tax returns. I haven’t heard people claiming tax evasion or fraud. I don’t think people speculations like those I described can be compared to Birthers. If there are people making the claims you stated, Edgar, they are fringe groups who do sound foolish, but they aren’t as prevalent as the Birthers with famous spokespersons, ie Trump.

Um, so Romney isn’t breaking the law? He is in compliance with the law, Denise? The law which president Obama and the then Democrat party majorities in both houses of Congress failed to change in 2009 and 2010? Why didn’t Obama change the law before his shellacking in 2010? Why did Obama and the Democrat party majorities in both houses of Congress EXTEND the Bush tax rates, after their shellacking, rather than END the Bush tax rates? How bad could the Bush tax rates be, if Obama and the then Democrat party majorities in both houses of Congress chose to extend, rather than end, the Bush tax rates?

Speaking of releasing documents: Why do you think that Obama wouldn’t release the 70,000 documents sought by the House as they investigagted the fatal “Fast and Furious” scheme run by Eric Holder’s Justice Department? I mean, since the release of documents is so important, and given Obama’s unkept promise to be transparent?

How would I know if he were breaking the law? I am not a lawyer, nor do I know what he has done. What I said was, the people who are asking for him to release his records, at least the ones I have read about, haven’t claimed he was breaking the law, which was not how you described them.

Edgar, you seem like you have a real chip on your shoulder.I said nothing inflammatory, yet you have such a snarky tone in your response. (And is pretty much all your responses on this blog, and you seem to have a response to everyone.) I also did not claim to have all the answers. I don’t know why the Bush tax cuts were extended. I am not a spokesperson for the party or the Obama campaign. Any answer I gave I would be pulling out of *you know where* and I’m not playing that game. It seems like you have a need to group anyone that disagrees with you, either in fact or philosophy, into a specific convenient category then pounce on them with a rude tone and by asking questions they couldn’t possibly answer or about topics they never even commented on. Please stop.

The prevailing theory suggests Romney, who owned a Swiss bank account in 2007, took advantage of an IRS amnesty program offered to wealthy individuals who were illegally sheltering assets from United States taxes. To avoid prosecution, these individuals paid $5 billion in “voluntary disclosures”; this after a UBS whistleblower turned the company in for facilitating the tax evasion scheme. Romney’s tax filings would potentially shed light on his participation in the scheme, which would of course blow up his candidacy.

For whatever reason, fifty percent of our country’s voting population seems perfectly ok with the disparate tax rates. Romney’s 13% rate is unconscionable, especially considering one doesn’t labor nearly as much for capital gains as one does for salary. It’s one thing to reward the work someone puts into getting wealthy by treating earned income similarly, and wholly another to reward someone much more handsomely simply for being a wealthy person. This ludicrous standard should be anathema to the Republican/Conservative ethos of work, merit and personal responsibility; it slaps any hard working, not-rich person in the face. But since the right has been bought and paid for by the rich, it comes as no surprise where the voting party members turn out.

Um, Denise, if you don’t know that Romney is breaking the law, by not paying taxes, why do you think that Mr Obama is not using the IRS to prosecute Romney for breaking the law by not paying taxes? Wouldn’t such a prosecution, coming dirung the presidential campaign, tend to assure Obama of his much sought after victory? So, if Obama is NOT using the IRS to prosecute Romney, for not paying taxes, during this presidential campaign season, when for Obama to prosecute Romney would assure Obama of victory, it seems safe to believe that romney has paid his taxes. Don’t you think? Are you a “taxer?”

Wouldn’t you agree that it was odd of Mr Obama and his Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress to EXTEND, rather than END, the Bush tax rates, about which Obama and his Democrat party allies have conmplained so very much? You and I may not know why they extended the Bush tax rates, but they DID extend them. Their actions speak louder than their words.